Steve McCurry’s 'Last Roll of Kodachrome' photos are now live on his blog

Award-winning photographer Steve McCurry has published the photos taken with the last roll of Kodakchrome to come off the production line on his Wordpress blog. McCurry has shot more than 800,000 photos including his iconic 'Afghan Girl' portrait, with the film. In an article posted by NPR in 2009 McCurry equated 'losing the medium to losing a dear friend.'

These are great image, but I for one am tired of always looking at asian, there poverty etc. Looking for the images that are different. What about staying in North America, do we not have anything to offer

Apparently North America does not offer a high degree of literacy. Asia is spelt with a capital, and "there" should be "their"... :- )

Asia holds by far the majority of the world's population, and it offers diverse, exotic and highly colourful images to those who choose to engage with it. That said, North America is at times stunningly beautiful... you would know coming from Calgary! So perhaps his choice is not a failing on his part, rather an exercise in the photographer expressing himself...

Every time I have problems with color from a roll of film these days, I can't help but think "If only I had loaded Kodachrome" Probably just selective memory, but what a great film it was, we shall never see it's equal again in this world.

Yesterday I went to a store in Yokohama (Bic Camera) where there was still a lot of choice in photo-films sold: Fujifilm, Kodak (not everything though) and even... Agfa rolls, in their famous red little box (I hadn't seen any for maybe 15 or 20 years).

It means somewhere on this planet somebody is still able to develop rolls; in which manner I couldn't tell. Yet, there are still some players on the playground... at least in Japan !

Umm, the roll of K64 in my Olympus Mju ii has a serial number one higher than his - should I tell him?

I'm happy to send him my roll if he wants to use up the remaining 6 frames, as long as he returns my camera afterwards - it's the limited edition one with the dateback and silver wrist strap so I don't just loan it to anyone.

He'd need to publishes my pictures too - there's a really good one of my Aunt doing the conga, and some arty contre-jour shots of Fudgie and Patch our guinea pigs.

Frames 8-30 he can ignore as I forgot to switch the camera off before I put it in my jacket.

Outstanding. However there are 30 images. This implies 6 or 7 were deleted. I would have also deleted the 2nd shot of De Niro. Such a dud compared to the first, and its existence devalues the first one slightly. I'm surprised it made the cut, especially considering he "proofed" all the shots with a digital camera first.

McCurry used a digital camera BEFORE he clicked the shutter on that last role of Kodachrome: “I wanted that reinforcement, to be able to see it on a two-dimensional screen...” – Steve McCurry, National Geographic photographer, on shooting the last roll of Kodachrome film produced by Kodak, during which time he took each photograph first with a digital camera. From Shutterbug Magazine, October 2011: “McCurry took no chances shooting the last roll of Kodachrome. To make sure he had exactly the right moment for each photo, in focus and at the right exposure, he first used a digital camera.”

Agreed ! I don't want to start a new discussion about Kodak, but I just wanted to say I never understood why this company didn't try to stay in the game earning money with its printing department, while making sure everybody knows the brand is around by selling SD cards/speedlight flashes like mads and - why not ? - shifting to making lenses like Tamron and Sigma. This would have been a big leap for sure, but everything was better than stupidily waiting for the end.

@AlizarineSure you can, but if so, much less, if any, is needed. If you have shot Kodachrome or Velvia (or other films, but these are exceptional) you know you can get fantastic shots without any extra help from a computer.

Jeff,I think the nuances and richness of the colors are outstanding without looking oversaturated. They are strong, yet natural. Look at the series of portraits, the red colors, the white colors, the skintones. And the amazing is that this just by clickling the shutter, no curves, no adjustment layers, no elaborate PP to fix the shortcomings of the digital image.

But the issues is how much did using Kodachrome 64 impact the final result compared to if the same photographer had used a modern high-end digital under the same conditions for the same shot. Are they any better because they were taken with Kodachrome 64 than they would have been taken with digital? If the answer is "no" because of the "noise" (grain) and lack of contrast/saturation control, the this is just an exercise in nostalgia.You appear to be implying that these shots ARE technically better. If so, in what way?

My thoughts exactly; there's no way, looking at those images, I'd have thought wow, those must have been made on film. Some aren't even that wonderful to me; they seem self-conscious and not particularly interesting; although others are wonderful.

Come on, tell me you know anyone who shoots 30/30 "wonderful" photos. Don't you think that your expectations are bit too high? And we never think "wow, those must have been made on film" because of the world shaped by Lightroom and Photoshop we live in as well as the amount of excellent shots created every day in the world. A truly excellent shot will defend itself even if made using cellphone. It doesn't mean though that film as such is a better medium for capturing life than digital.

the difference can only be appreciated when the proper medium is at hand. In the case of vinyl it will be a good pressed and good sounding vinyl, record player+amp+speaker combo, in image it will be a proper print. digital is catching though up in terms of resolution, and you can always apply tone curves and color profiles to make your image look 'analogue', as you have plugins that will give 'warmth' to the sound. we can always debate if digital has or hasn't yet reached that level of resolution either in audio, video or still image... but its pretty close nowadays.

Our expectations have indeed changed, though perhaps not for the better. I suppose you would have pounded that grain into submission with the noise reduction slider, turned down the saturation slider till the red blinkies went away, added a tone curve to get rid of some of that annoying contrast, and sharpened it up with some unsharp mask?

The beauty of film is that each one has it's own characteristics and quirks. Photographers call it the "look" of a film. Some are grainy, some are contrasty, some are colorful, and you choose the right look to match your artistic vision the way a sculptor would choose a block of marble to carve his masterpiece. And like a sculpture where the imperfections in color and texture in the rock contribute to the overall aesthetic of the work, so to does film grain add to the feel of an image.

The difference between past and present praxis is that more people now process their own digital photos than ever processed film. The nostalgic remembrance of glory days past is a feature of comments by film-lovers that has not always been borne out by reality. I've recently read an interview with a great exponent of landscape photography. When asked whether he had become a Photoshop expert (having of necessity converted to digital), he said he just told the technician how he wanted it to look - just as he had when he shot with Velvia.

I used to love Kodachrome 64 but I did switched to mainly Fujifilm Velvia 100 before the end of film arrived. This was mainly for the (almost) extra stop and being able to get it processed cheaper, quicker and not mounted. In the UK you could only really get Kodachrome processed by post by Kodak.

I'm sure the Kodachrome slides will outlast any of the E6 slides I have. Looking through my old film stuff it is amazing how little is worth scanning - but then I'm not Steve McCurry!

BTW: Think of the financial cost of nipping off to India with a few hundred rolls of Kodachrome. The business model of photography has changed sooo much.

The agony this photographer must have felt every time he squeezed off a shot from his VERY LAST roll careful to not waste a single frame. Now he knows to some degree the agony of the unwashed masses who had to buy their own film and shot so few keepers. Thank God for digital. That being said, these images while a tad "grainy" are beautiful.

I far much prefer 'grain' over ugly digital noise, color banding and all those artifacts. Something totally unnatural feeling, where that analogue grain really gives an image texture, and some 'luminous noise' is often nice to have. As much as modern digital is clean in good light, unless you're making a massive print, which no one does these days...

Only a litle over 8 minutes into this video and really enjoying it. Sad indeed, but paradigms do shift but fortunately memories will hold on. Thanks for sharing your experience with this wonderful yet now sad end of an era Steve. :)

I very much enjoyed shooting this film. And my father shot dozens of rolls of it from the late 1950s to the early 1980s. Fortunately they all survived and look as brilliant as they did when they arrived in the mail after being processed in Palo Alto.

A photographer paying tribute to his "tool" of choice for such great moments in his career by shooting "the last roll" of Kodachrome could not be a more perfect final chapter for such a iconic image registering medium, one that even has the previous "honor" of having a song been written about it.

I love digital, but cannot but lament the dismissal of such a powerful photographic tool...I guess the tide of times just makes everything, sooner or later, obsolete, irrespective of its intrinsic and objective value.

It is also ironically sad while, at the same time, extremely reveling that he found fit to bring along his digital DSLR to test possible shots before actually expending the valuable Kodachrome frames.

Given that usually we take dozens, if not hundreds sometimes, of pictures, to get a few very good ones... I feel that having 36 out of 36 being a success, this was quite an achievement, that few of us could aspire to.

In this light, although I would have liked to see a wider range, subject wise, and geographically, on the last roll, I feel it was a nice closing. After all, the world is all about how it is seen, through various eyes. And those eyes, belong to the people.

Great video of a wonderful film and an incredible photographer. I began my photography with Kodachrome and loved the warm tones. This video is well done and I appreciate those who put it together. We have friends who have degrees in film history/production who have always known and used digital. I will be curious about their response to this video. Thank you for letting us know about it and sharing it.

Great Goodbye on the last roll, excellent shots all. I switched from Kodachrome to Fujichrome around 1984, but still can remember the Kodachrome's over-accented warm part of the spectrum. It was a pleasure to look at.

I did not find the photos on his Wordpress blog. Even your own link points to a gallery on his website instead, where these pictures have been available for ages. They are great of course but I fail to see what the news is.

Looks Great, but my last years of shooting slide film - I shot Fujichrome Provia 100F & not much of anything else. I personally think Fujichrome Blew Kodachrome away! ! I have a roll in my EOS-3 - probably been in the camera going on 2 years. I'll finish it some day this spring or summer.